get_video_privacy

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying exactly what the response covers: watch permissions, embed permissions, and the domain whitelist when embedding is restricted. No contradictions or hidden side effects are present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds a key caveat about the domain whitelist. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what information is returned: watch access, embed access, and the domain whitelist. It could additionally clarify the exact privacy level values, but the statement 'exactly who can watch and embed' is strong enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single video_id parameter is self-explanatory as 'Video id.' The description does not add deeper semantics about the parameter, but none are needed given the schema already fully documents it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Show') and a specific resource ('who can watch and embed a video'), and goes beyond a generic 'get privacy' by naming the domain whitelist detail. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_video and list_videos.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving video privacy and embedding restrictions, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as get_video or update_video. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, though the intended use case is reasonably inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.